OHTA.ca

Hi folks.

Few days ago the police put me a ticket for Disobeying a Stop Sign 136 (1) (a) in Thornhill Woods.

I'm quite sure I did stop but the police told me they have me recorded.

So i requested the disclosure and I got their notes and a video.

There are a couple of inconsistencies here:

1) The notes indicate: In Car Camera Footage of Offense Captured (Yes)

2) The video provided with the disclosure just shows when they stopped me 2 blocks away... and actually I can hear the office saying they have a video of the offense.

3) Notes indicate: Number of Occupants (1). However there were 3 persons in the car.

4) Looking at the video, you can easily determine there were at least 2 people in the car as you can see the heads moving.

A couple of questions for you guys:

1) How should I proceed with the video that was not provided and that according to the notes do exist? Should I ask for the disclosure again?

2) Can I say that to the JP that, if the police were unable to notice there were 3 occupants... then how can they assure from 30m that my rims did not stop?

3) If the video of the offence does not exist? Can I say the cop is lying when tells me they have a recording? If they are lying with that, how can I be sure they are not lying with the offense?

Thank you very much and happy holidays for everyone.

I would make another request and specifically for the video of the offense itself as the officer even admits that there is video of it.

You can ask the officer how many occupants (1 per notes) and then point out there are three heads in the video. This will not win the ticket for you, but just as a very little bit of weight against the officer. On its own it is not enough. But your question would be good... "So you say you saw 1 occupant in the vehicle from less than 10 meters away, but clearly there are 3. So is it possible that your observation of the rims not stopping, viewed from 30 meters away, is also inaccurate?"

As Jeff suggested, contact the prosecutor's office in writing again and ask for clarification as to whether there is video of you committing the act itself---not after the fact. If there's no additional video, then use what you have to discredit the officer. After all, if the officer's notes say there was only 1 person in the car, but the video shows more than that it will clearly call in to question his observations of whether you stopped or not. After all, he would have been up close to your vehicle and spoken to you to give you the ticket. So, how can he make such a big mistake as to the number of occupants when he is right up to you, but be believed that you stopped from a much greater distance!

Plus, if the video DOES have audio of him saying he got you on video not stopping, then it once again, will challenge his credibility since you'll have the reply from the prosecutor's office saying there isn't any such additional video. It just makes the officer seem less credible.

Bottom line: it doesn't mean your case is a slam dunk necessarily, but it certainly WILL challenge the officer's credibility and potentially be enough to create reasonable doubt.

And if you have never been to court before, you might want to read this thread http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html so you understand what we mean by cross-examination and a little how to do it.

I got a ticket this morning while driving my sons to school. The officer said I only slowed down but didn't stop at the intersection. However I did stop because the intersection is a block from the school and there was a crossing guard there to help the students cross the road. The crossing guard at the time was helping some students crossing the road along the direction I was going. I also saw the officer parked on my right at the intersection. I came to a complete stop and it was clear for me to proceed. At that time no other car at the intersection and no one crossing the road in front of me. Then the officer came after me. My oldest son age 10 told me that he saw me stopped at the intersection. Can I use my son as a witness when I dispute the charge? Will the judge take my son as a credible witness?

From the Ontario Evidence Act https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e23

Presumption of competency

18. (1) A person of any age is presumed to be competent to give evidence. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Challenge, examination

(2) When a persons competence is challenged, the judge, justice or other presiding officer shall examine the person. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Exception

(3) However, if the judge, justice or other presiding officer is of the opinion that the persons ability to give evidence might be adversely affected if he or she examined the person, the person may be examined by counsel instead. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Evidence of witness under 14

18.1 (1) When the competence of a proposed witness who is a person under the age of 14 is challenged, the court may admit the persons evidence if the person is able to communicate the evidence, understands the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and testifies under oath or solemn affirmation. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Same

(2) The court may admit the persons evidence, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even though the person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation, if the person understands what it means to tell the truth and promises to tell the truth. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).

Further discretion

(3) If the court is of the opinion that the persons evidence is sufficiently reliable, the court has discretion to admit it, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even if the person understands neither the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation nor what it means to tell the truth.

I requested the evidence showing the offense and they simply told me that what I got is what they have. One of the prosecutors there heard my conversation and came to make a deal. He checked the videos and he says there is nothing else... and offered to reduce one demerit point... thing that I completely rejected because I consider I am not guilty.

All this was verbal as I was not allowed to request the evidence again.

How should I proceed? Should I sent a formal letter requesting the video again?

Or having a video of the police office saying to me that he verified the video of the offense should be enough to disqualify him?

Thanks.

Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.

During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"

If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help.

If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."

jsherk wrote:Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.

During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"

If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help.

If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."

Actually, that's an improper question since it presupposes that the officer made the statement. If the prosecutor is on their game, they should object and the JP should sustain it (Assumes facts not in evidence). The problem with the question is that you are already claiming that the statement was made to you and are simply asking him for his motive for the statement; not whether the statement was actually made!

Rather, the proper question (as per a long-standing common law evidence rule) is that you first 'put the statement to the witness'. So, the proper question should be "Did you tell me that you looked at a video of the incident?" If he answers positively, now you can examine on it-----if he disputes the statement then you must move on----the witness has answered the question and not adapted the statement. The only way to introduce that statement now is for YOU to either introduce it from another witness who heard it----(likely YOU by taking the stand) and/or some written/audio/video evidence corroborating it was made.

While some JP's don't quite understand the complexities of evidence law and let a lot of things slide, some ARE very knowledgeable and won't simply allow you to challenge a witness on a 'hypothetical' statement that has not been adapted as evidence.